Upadhye Tang LLP announces its name change from Upadhye Cwik LLP. We launched Upadhye Cwik LLP in June 2019. Due to the untimely passing of named partner Joe Cwik in Feb. 2020, we now announce our name change to Upadhye Tang LLP. All contact information and our website (https://ipfdalaw.com) remains the same.
The firm started with experienced litigators in court cases and arbitrations involving claims of patent infringement, incorrect patent inventorship, false advertisement, unfair business practices, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, etc., as well as non-litigation or quasi-litigation matters before the PTO (such as inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews), FDA, FTC, EPO, ITC, and state attorney generals’ offices.
We “punch above our weight,” zealously represent our clients assertively and efficiently, and provided, we believe, excellent and affordable legal representation and insightful and timely communications to our clients in the pharmaceutical, medical, chemical, biotechnology, electronics, and other technical fields.
Our logo incorporates the Koi fish, which symbolizes perseverance, success, strength, courage, loyalty, and good fortune. It symbolizes how we represent our clients. We work to understand our client’s goals, align to them, and then execute with the strength, courage, loyalty necessary to obtain success and good fortune.
Our attorneys, through combined decades of practice, are interested and proficient in providing integrated solutions for the business, regulatory, and litigation needs of large and small companies alike, as well as individual clients on patent prosecution and litigation matters. Our firm represented clients based all across the globe, including pharmaceutical, biotech, and electronics companies based in the US, Canada, Turkey, India, Europe, and China.
Here are a few examples of the work we recently handled:
- UT represented a 505(b)(2) filer against a brand company represented by one of the world’s largest law firms, in a series of lawsuits involving a total of 13 patents (and counting). We pushed back and a few patents were later dismissed during the three-year litigation. UT was ready for trial in the District of Delaware on four patents when the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy. The cases were stayed due to the bankruptcy proceeding and subsequently dismissed by party agreement. The UT clients were the only defendants in these cases.
- UT helped a specialty pharmaceutical company satisfactorily resolve a long-running dispute with a much larger pharmaceutical company represented by a large law firm. This case stemmed from commercial competition and involved intricacies of FDA regulations on DESI and “identical, related, or similar” drug products, allegations of false advertisement and antitrust violation, and a trip to the ITC (which resulted in the dismissal of the large pharma company’s complaint in that forum). We helped this client in the ITC and two different district court actions.
- UT represented an ANDA filer in a Hatch-Waxman Act litigation in the District of Delaware. The case was dismissed during expert discovery. The plaintiffs asserted multiple patents purportedly covering different aspects of the reference listed drug product, including chemical compound, API crystal form, method of treatment, and off-label use of the drug.
- UT represents an ANDA filer in a Hatch-Waxman Act litigation in the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs asserted multiple patents purportedly covering different aspects of the reference listed drug product, including chemical compound and formulation. UT has filed a dispositive motion on the client’s behalf to remove the patent-in-suit with the longest expiry.
- UT represents an ANDA filer in a Hatch-Waxman Act litigation in the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs asserted multiple patents in this and related cases purportedly covering different aspects of the reference listed drug product, including chemical compound, API crystal form, and formulation.
- We helped a client recently with regulatory strategy that allowed the client to file a Section viii Statement instead of a Paragraph IV certification, which every other ANDA sponsor filed. Because we convinced the FDA to permit the Section viii Statement, our client got final ANDA approval before everyone else and without any litigation spend. It was a surprise to the brand company and other ANDA sponsors.
- Recently, UC attorneys worked with its clients to prepare for and resolve emerging issues relating to the COVID-19 crisis. More particularly, UC attorneys worked with clients involving supply chain interruption, product recalls, contract disputes, and FDA enforcement actions.
Call Upadhye Tang LLP at 312-327-3326 or view our website: ipfdalaw.com for more information about our innovative legal practice and how we help solve a client’s problems.
